On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Chip Coldwell wrote: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > > Hi Chip, > > > > the folks from EMC have forwarded your request to me. > > You already might have seen the initial posting to > > dm-devel, so there's at least some code to get a start. > > > > Currently I'm working on implementing a generic > > command queue framework for hardware handler, so that > > the rdac and alua handler don't have to implement their > > own handling but rather can use some generic functions. > > > > So, how can I help you? > > Well, you just did. I think I found your posting here > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2007-October/msg00033.html > > So now I will take a little time to read and understand the code. > Then perhaps we should take our conversation over to the dm-devel > mailing list. Apropos this +/* + * Evaluate SET TARGET GROUP STATES + * + * We only have to test here if we should resubmit the command; + * any other error is assumed as a failure. + * Maybe we should analyze the sensebuffer here, too. + */ +static void alua_stpg(struct alua_handler *h, enum tpgs_state n) +{ + unsigned error; + int retry = 5; + + retry: + error = submit_stpg(h); + switch(host_byte(error)) { + case DID_BUS_BUSY: + if (!retry) + break; + retry++; + case DID_REQUEUE: + case DID_IMM_RETRY: + goto retry; + } Didn't you mean to use "retry--" instead of "retry++"? Otherwise, I think you'll get a few more retries than you planned. Also, I note that the tpgs_state parameter isn't used; submit_stpg will always try to put the port group into the OPTIMIZED state. Is that the intention? Chip -- Charles M. "Chip" Coldwell Senior Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc 978-392-2426 -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
